Half of European men share King Tut's DNA

[Dinner]

Bugs, the reason why this would be more compelling than that is because this R1b haplotype is extremely rare in Egypt (<1%). It would mean that Tut had at least a patrilineal ancestor who was not of the same ethnicity as Egyptians.

Or the far more likely conclusion that modern Egyptians aren't all that related to ancient Egyptians on their male sides. Successive waves of invasions killing or enslaving people have a habit of doing that.

[giblets]

Yeah, maybe all of their women were raped by invading arabs or something.

[Al B. Sure!]

Yeah, maybe all of their women were raped by invading arabs or something.

The Arab conquerors of the 7th century numbered only a few thousand at most. They were, after all, Bedouins living in the desert. There is no substance to the claims, usually brought up by revisionist Afrocentrics, that the Arab conquest of Egypt changed the genetic composition of the country in any meaningful way. Culturally, the Egyptians were progressively Arabized but the actual conquest was not met with any significant change in the population.

[Dinner]

Yeah, maybe all of their women were raped by invading arabs or something.

Or any of a half dozen other invaders between Tut's time and the modern era.

The Arab conquerors of the 7th century numbered only a few thousand at most.

Tell a Latin American that a small group of male invaders can't have an outsized effect on the population make up of a country then understand that groups from the mid-east, Sudan, Greece, Roman, and tons of others have invaded Egypt each killing, rape, enslaving, etc... Given the pretty small population of Egypt at the time when Tut was in charge it's pretty easy to see some major genetic changes especially on the male side.

[Al B. Sure!]

Oerdin, your entire knowledge of history is wrong. Modern Hispanics are not all descended from a few hundred conquistadores but from the vast numbers of immigrants who came from Europe (mostly Spain) in the succeeding centuries.

[giblets]

The Arab conquerors of the 7th century numbered only a few thousand at most. They were, after all, Bedouins living in the desert. There is no substance to the claims, usually brought up by revisionist Afrocentrics, that the Arab conquest of Egypt changed the genetic composition of the country in any meaningful way. Culturally, the Egyptians were progressively Arabized but the actual conquest was not met with any significant change in the population.

Those few thousand Bedouins must have been pretty busy.

[DaShi]

KHAAAAAAAAN!

[Dinner]

Is it really so hard to believe that a half dozen foreign invasions which set up empires lasting hundreds of years could result in some major demographic changes in a relatively small population? Especially when given thousands of years to propogate themselves in the population? It's really not that surprising that modern groups are only partially related to ancient groups from 3000 or more years ago.

[Al B. Sure!]

KHAAAAAAAAN!

Actually, intended or not, you actually bring up an interesting counter-point to my claims. Khan is a very common name in Afghanistan and South Asia and generally denotes ancestry to a Turkic or Mongol chieften (Khan). Presumably all those South Asian Khans had a male ancestor who was a Central Asian warlord.

[Al B. Sure!]

Is it really so hard to believe that a half dozen foreign invasions which set up empires lasting hundreds of years could result in some major demographic changes in a relatively small population? Especially when given thousands of years to propogate themselves in the population? It's really not that surprising that modern groups are only partially related to ancient groups from 3000 or more years ago.

Egypt is problematic because there's a long history of historical revisionism in an attempt to white-wash or black-wash or whatever else ancient Egypt.

[DaShi]

Actually, intended or not, you actually bring up an interesting counter-point to my claims. Khan is a very common name in Afghanistan and South Asia and generally denotes ancestry to a Turkic or Mongol chieften (Khan). Presumably all those South Asian Khans had a male ancestor who was a Central Asian warlord.

Yeah, but I said all that and made a joke with one word.

[Barnabas]

Or the far more likely conclusion that modern Egyptians aren't all that related to ancient Egyptians on their male sides. Successive waves of invasions killing or enslaving people have a habit of doing that.

Not really, the easiest explanation, is that the ruling class descended to some degree from invaders. Like the hicsos, I don't know how to write that in english.

It is a little like how the queen of england is basically an ethnic german.

[Al B. Sure!]

Not really, the easiest explanation, is that the ruling class descended to some degree from invaders. Like the hicsos, I don't know how to write that in english.

It is a little like how the queen of england is basically an ethnic german.

The problem is we have a good idea about Tutankhamun's male ancestors. He is a descendant of Ahmose I who came from Upper Egypt (Southern Egypt) and overthrew the Hyksos in Lower Egypt. Ahmose's male ancestors are known for several generations prior (though nowhere near 9,600 years ago, as this haplogroup originates) and they were all from Southern Egypt.

If anything, given his Southern Egyptian origins, I would have always expected Tut to be more Hamitic, at least on his patrilineal descent, than Middle Eastern.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Bugs, the reason why this would be more compelling than that is because this R1b haplotype is extremely rare in Egypt (<1%). It would mean that Tut had at least a patrilineal ancestor who was not of the same ethnicity as Egyptians.

We could be talking one single ancestor in 4500 years. That's about 150 generations. I repeat- whoop-de-diddly-doo.

[Ben Kenobi]

Bugs, the reason why this would be more compelling than that is because this R1b haplotype is extremely rare in Egypt (<1%). It would mean that Tut had at least a patrilineal ancestor who was not of the same ethnicity as Egyptians.

Erm, no, that's not what it means. It means that Egyptians today have no genetic link with Egyptians in the past. It also means that there's a connection with Europe to the Pharaohs, which is also interesting, (and not surprising), given the connection to Rome and the Emperors in Egypt. It would suggest that ancient Egyptians did live in Egypt at least until the Muslims came.